15 and out: Limiting terms on the Supreme Court

May 24, 2001|By Steve Fox. Steve Fox, a lawyer and graduate of Boston College Law School, lives in Bethesda, Md.

The Supreme Court's decision in the Bush vs. Gore presidential race revealed an ugly truth about the court: It is not above politics. More important, Americans were given clear evidence that some Supreme Court justices are willing to undermine our delicate system of checks and balances to further their own political beliefs.

The outrage here is not that the court determined who would be the next president. The court is always making political decisions; this just happens to be one that affected the presidency rather than, say, privately owned motels in the South. The real outrage is that the justices are abusing a system designed to protect them in order to circumvent the will of the American people.

When the Constitution was written, the Framers decided federal judges would be appointed to their positions for life (during good behavior) to make them immune from political control.

Unfortunately, some Supreme Court justices have turned this privilege on its head and are using it to wield political control of their own.

It seems to be acceptable now for justices to do whatever they can to ensure that they are replaced by ideologically similar jurists. For example, The Washington Post reported--in a non-critical manner--that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was upset on election night when it first appeared that Al Gore would win, because she wanted a Republican to name her successor.

Similarly, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution published an article discussing the possibility of Justice William H. Rehnquist retiring soon. The article, again in a very matter-of-fact tone, stated, "Many court-watchers believe that Rehnquist has been waiting to outlast the Clinton administration in hopes his successor could be nominated by a Republican president."

We are left with a situation unique among the three branches of government: Supreme Court justices can now determine the party of their successors. And we can only assume that future justices will be more likely to do so, given the increased partisanship in Washington. It should be noted that longer life-expectancies and medical advances will give justices an even greater potential window of opportunity.

There is only one solution to this problem: a constitutional amendment limiting the time any individual could serve on the Supreme Court to 15 years. This amendment, which would not apply to any justice currently serving on the court, would prevent future justices from delaying retirement until a president of his or her liking is in office.

The fact that lifetime appointments were intended to immunize judges from political pressure is not applicable here because Supreme Court justices would not be eligible for reappointment. Moreover, in a country where even the greatest president may serve only eight years, it seems illogical to suggest that 15 years on the Supreme Court represents a threat to our system of government.

In his closing to his dissent in Bush vs. Gore, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."

So now that we see the Supreme Court for what it is--a biased, political entity--it is finally time, after 214 years, to adopt a term-limiting amendment and give Americans greater influence over the selection of Supreme Court justices.